User talk:Rkmlai/Archive

 Leave me a message here.

Re: Critical_Mass (activist) v. Critical_mass
Hi! There have previously been suggestions to move the Critical Mass article to Critical Mass (bicycle) but the consensus was that this was not necessary. I also have a Mac (OS X 10.4.5) and it has no problem seeing the difference between Critical Mass and Critical mass in any browser that I have tried (Safari, Firefox, Camino). Critical Mass (activist) would be a particularly bad place title for the article because, in my experience, most of the people riding Critical Mass don't consider themselves 'activists'--they are just going out on their bicycles. JeremyA 16:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * hello JeremyA i was using Safari 2.0.3 and OS 10.4.4 and attempted to keep a copy of /wiki/Critical_mass via (Save As ...) and received a dialog box saying i already had /wiki/Critical_Mass on my computer. indeed i do download copies of articles to read when i am out of internet range. that was the problem i experienced specifically. as a side issue i will find out the differences between capitalization for URLs. i agree that some participants of Critical Mass may not identify as "activists" yet most i saw and identified were activists by my definition. maybe it was the rides i was on or the friends i have or the area (city) i was at. thank you for your consideration. i do not need any further changes made to /wiki/Critical_Mass rkmlai 05:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Endangered Species Chocolate Company
The article Endangered Species Chocolate Company has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. If you can provide more information about this subject, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. FreplySpang 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Elizabeth Haub}}}
Hello. Concerning your contribution, :, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from. As a copyright violation, : appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. : has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk: and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk: with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. But as you'll have previously noted, the subject is non-notable, so you should anticipate the likelihood of deletion after 5 days' discussion at WP:AfD, in light of the Google test results
 * 219 of about 364 for "Elizabeth Haub" environment

of which i have examined the first seven non-PDF hits, finding her name used, other than as an adjective, only in two, each of which is indistinguishable from a consideration made to, or expected by, her associates as partial consideration for financial contributions made in her honor. These results create a strong presumption of her unsuitability as subject of a WP bio, due to non-notability. --Jerzy•t 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Images
I removed the box because the image was long gone. I don't know why your image was deleted, but it is likely that it was removed due to fears of copyright infringments. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy page in order to learn how to upload images and tag them without having to worry about them being removed due to legal concerns. Asarelah 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not totally sure what kind of tag you would need to put on an image that someone else took but that you had permission to add. I suggest you go to Help desk, describe where you got the image, and ask what kind of licensing tag to put on it. Asarelah 00:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Little context in U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning
A tag has been placed on César E. Chávez Plaza, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jonnie d smith 23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Six Feet Under Deaths
I appreciate your input for List of Six Feet Under deaths. I have the idea that the list is important in how it relates to the show and provides for an understanding of the show's 'arcs'. In reading your user page I found your other web content. I 'friended' your livejournal. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for friending my LJ. I always enjoy having interesting new journals to read :)


 * I don't watch the show myself, so I'm coming at the article from the stance of someone in the TV project trying to get articles in line with our MOS and as the "typical" reader who may not have any knowledge of the show. For me, I personally don't see how the list of deaths can't be incorporated into the episode list (particularly when the summaries need expanding anyway).  Since I am not a fan, the list doesn't really tell me anything about the show and just seems like a somewhat morbid track list rather than encyclopedic content.  To me, it needs the context of the show itself, or at least of the episode summaries to really be of any value to anyone who doesn't watch the show.  Looking at the list alone, I couldn't even tell the show had arcs or the like, just that a lot of people died in it.  Do you see what I mean? Collectonian (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Six_Feet_Under_deaths
 * "I am withdrawing this nomination to redo as a solo nomination instead of a multi-article one. (non-admin closure) Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)"
 * What does that mean ? How might I assist in creating a better article for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Six_Feet_Under_deaths that would withstand a AfD ?
 * Peace, rkmlai (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When I did the original AfD, I included seven list of death articles, but I withdrew it to nominate each individually since some commenters were finding it hard to evaluated as a group. Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I add, that after I posted the above, then I found your previous response also under the uncreative heading "==Hello==" . Yes I see what you mean in that the List_of_Six_Feet_Under_deaths (alone) seems without merit or understanding, unless knowledge of the shows 'arcs' are also known by having seen the show. I am currently attempting to figure out a way to incorporate the information into the main article, without becoming an 'arc' spoiler, but finding it much easier to create articles like I Street Bridge (someting I see much more often IRL). Peace, rkmlai (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, while the deaths are part of the show, a general discussion of the theme of death and the show belongs in the show article, while any listing of deaths should be incorporated into the actual episode list rather than trying to get a list to stand alone. (hope you don't mind, I did a little clean up on the I Street Bridge article for you :) ) Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (moved up to be under one thread :))


 * however, some of the info in the I Street Bridge geobox is incomplete and inaccurate as I copied the geobox from another article, which is why it was parked in the talk page.


 * Peace, rkmlai (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Anything that inaccurate, you can just set to blank until you (or another editor) has time to put in the info.  Incomplete is okay for infoboxes, especially for a stub article :) If you want to do editing on something before adding to the main article, it is better to do so in your user sandbox rather than in the talk page :) Collectonian (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I was not wanting to 'blank' the values as I needed a 'value' to see what could go where in the geobox. ie what does this mean:


 * number                     = 4
 * number_type                = Number of Spans
 * height_imperial            = 49.9
 * height_type                = Clearance
 * height1_imperial           = 109.3
 * height1_type               = Navigational
 * height1_note               = mid-span ? That is a retorical question, which I am looking up what are valid values to add as we speak.


 * However on a related note, what do you think about the one remaining reference http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ca/Sacramento/state.html being so vauge (like needing to look up 82002233), where as I thought the other references, listed, though 'fluffy' were more specific to the history and feel of the bridge ? :)


 * rkmlai (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That link is good, because it is on the list of historic places and that's official sites. The rest, being fluffy and most not being from reliable sources, are not very appropriate. FOr the info box, check the template's page.  It should have some help there for filling it in, since its a fairly extensive template. Collectonian (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jonah House
A tag has been placed on Jonah House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. jonny - m t  16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonah House verifable sources
Can you add Verfiable sources? It would go a long way to saving the article if there were sources, ie, newspaper/magazine articles, books, other media mention that establish that they meet notability requirements. Cheers amd happy editing. Dloh  cierekim  21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&diff=178810668&oldid=178757043 Cool. Thanks]. I will down grade the thing to a "PROD". That way it will still be reviewed, but with less haste and more discussion before deletion. By that time it should be able to have established notability and verifiability. Dloh  cierekim  22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC---Need for Tags

 * As a happy user of LJ, I decided to check out this page last night and was shocked by the article that I encountered. The article is very well written---professional quality even, which opens up the question as to who is editing the article?  This concern is especially true when you read the article.  Virtually every reference is from the LJ site directly---often a statement from management or FAQ or press release.  The article reads like something that the LJ PR staff might release.  For example, the entire section on the Abuse Prevention Team reads like something straight from a PR release.  The features section is also decidedly PRish in nature. Re-reading the entire article is so POV and advertish that it isn't even funny.  95% of the entire article reads like something from LJ!Balloonman (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article as it exists now seems like a one-sided pro Live Journal article showing off it's features, how LJ has been successful, how some were uncomfortable with LJ policy of banning some accounts, what LJ did in response, and how other journal engines attempt to emulate LJ style. All seemingly pro LJ and answering objections from critics rather than being critical or neutral in point of view of wether LJ is better / worse than blogster, Dead Journal, greatist journal, etc. I would suggest a rewrite of the article as it is worthy of wikipedia in notability and as a point of reference of what a LJ, a blog, and history of LJ, as well as what may happen secondary to the sale to SUP Fabrik. Thanks, rkmlai (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) aka http://rkmlai.livejournal.com


 * "I agree that the article as it exists now seems like a one-sided pro Live Journal article showing off it's features, how LJ has been successful, how some were uncomfortable with LJ policy of banning some accounts, what LJ did in response, and how other journal engines attempt to emulate LJ style." - apart from the "pro-LiveJournal" claim, isn't that pretty much what this article should contain? This is an article about what LiveJournal is, and controversy is just a small part of that. Neitherday (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "All seemingly pro LJ and answering objections from critics rather than being critical or neutral in point of view of wether LJ is better / worse than blogster, Dead Journal, greatist journal, etc. I would suggest a rewrite of the article as it is worthy of wikipedia in notability and as a point of reference of what a LJ, a blog, and history of LJ, as well as what may happen secondary to the sale to SUP Fabrik." - I don't see where this article claims or infers that LiveJournal is better than other blogging services and speculation on what might happen due to the sale to SUP would run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Neitherday (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what I was trying to convey is that LJ "success" is by citing emulation by similar online journals. If they wernt successful, there would not be similar online journals, so there for ... the presence of other journals online, as cited in the wikipedia LJ article, bespeaks to LJ's successful reading of the market and what bloggers want. For the second part of your paragraph above is that I personally am using the LJ article to keep abreast of the opinion of what others who are editting the article see or feel about the SUP Fabrik sale. I think others are also using it as a way of hearing what is current. Not that wikipedia is a crystal ball, but that I dont read blog news and see the LJ wikipedia article as a source of news, a reflection of other sources. Thanks for reading rkmlai (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't state that others emulating LiveJournal is a sign of LiveJournal's success. It just states the notable and verifiable fact that others have emulated Livejournal. Facts should not avoided just because they may influence someone's ideas in a certain way - to do so would be to introduce a POV by omission. For example, we wouldn't think of leaving out information on Bill Gate's philanthropy just because it might cause some people think more positively of him. Neitherday (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask participants in this RFC to remember, especially, our policies on reliable sources and undue weight. Although, clearly, livejournal has made some of its users unhappy with its recent steps, we can't write an encyclopedic article based solely around those controversies, for one thing because it would be unbalanced and for another because reliable sources on them are difficult to find. Criticism that is not backed by sources cannot stand. Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays that state your feelings about livejournal (or any other topic), no matter how strongly you may feel and no matter how many other thousand unreliable blogs you can find stating similar feelings. Although several people have stated the need for sharper criticism, I have yet to see any of those people provide the sources that can be used to support such criticism, nor to consider the effect of expanding the current criticism section on the balance of the overall article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the sources, it is how the sources are presented and the descriptions made. This article is so POV that it isn't even funny.Balloonman (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that but aren't providing any explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Please be specific and constructive. "So POV that it isn't even funny" is not useful as a guide to how we should revise the article. What, precisely, would you say differently, how can you justify that change from sources, and why is it an improvement? Give examples. Otherwise, it is difficult to take this sort of vague complaining seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently only 24/43 sources are from Livejournal according to the references section. Anyone is welcome to add notable and verifiable information to the article. I see a lot of accusation about people's intentions and about the supposed content in the article, but what I don't see is anyone providing appropriate sources to add the material to the article. A company which makes a hobby about using official blogs or forums to make announcements have a history of being permitted as primary sources on Wikipedia. Random user/community/etc blogs/forum postings/self-publish websites do not. Otherwise we could all go whip up whatever source we want to say whatever we want about the subject and include it in the article. If there is a criticism about a subject and the only reliable source on the issue is a statement made from the subject you have two choices, either not include the controversy/criticism at all if you're afraid its going to be too one-sided or only include that material which comes from reliable sources. Perhaps we need a new guideline that says only if a third party (e.g. news paper, or other reliable publication) picks up a controversy should it be included in the article. Also what I haven't seen is any explanation of exactly how this reads like an advert, and exactly what changes would be recommended. The various policies of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are very clear on how to handle various sources and what information can be taken from them. Feel free to edit in accordance with them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, my criticism is with this article, not with LJ as a whole. I like LJ, but this article reads like an advert/POV.  My concern is not based upon the facts, but the presentation of the facts in such a manner that it is selling LJ on Wikipedia:
 * "The most distinguishing feature of LiveJournal is the "friends list," which gives the site a strong social aspect in addition to the blog services."
 * "Users may upload graphical avatars, or "userpics," which appear next to the username in prominent areas as it would on an Internet forum. Paid account holders are given full access to S2 management and more userpics, as well as other features." Sales and marketing.
 * "The popular "friends only" security option, which has since been adopted by Xanga and MySpace, hides a post from the general public so that only those on the user's friends list can read it."
 * "LiveJournal additionally has a "private" security option which allows users to make a post that only the poster can read, thus making their LiveJournal a private diary rather than a blog."
 * "All users, including non-paying users, can set various options for comments:" This is a sign that LJ employees had an input in writing this---who else would emphasize non-paying users?  This type of statement reaks of something that was culled from company propaganda.

This is just a sampling of the cases that shows bias.Balloonman (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The "most distinguishing feature" is how it most identifiably differs from other blog sites. The usage here is along the lines of "the most distinguishing feature of the manx is a lack of a tail."
 * 2) This seems very matter of fact. I don't see how this is overly marketing. The differences between account types are important to describing the various aspects of LiveJournal functionality.
 * 3) It is popular, in that it is widely used. I don't see how popular is POV is this regard. I guess "popular" could be replaced with "widely used", but I don't think it needs to be.
 * 4) Perhaps a bit on the overexplaining side, but I don't see how it is POV.
 * 5) Again, the differences between account levels is important, and with so many features that vary with account level it is useful to note which functions are available to all users. Neitherday (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "All users, including non-paying users, can set various options for comments:" This is a sign that LJ employees had an input in writing this The edit was . If you can show that that editor was an LJ employee, or influenced by an LJ employee, please do so, but otherwise I think it's better to focus on the article content. Mdwh (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonah House
I only deleted it because there was an expired prod tag on it. The original concern cited by Dlohcierekim was that it did not establish notability.  jj137  ♠ 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What more would you like to have seen in the Jonah House article ? rkmlai (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only deleted it because there was an expired prod tag on it. The original concern cited by Dlohcierekim was that it did not establish notability.   jj137  ♠ 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since that tag I had added significant changes, references, and sources for the article. I also left two posts requesting feedback on the talk page. Of which I received no responses. rkmlai (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you undelete it please or give feedback as to what to add to this significant and notable organization to the Catholic Worker Movement, faith based nonviolent resistance, and peace movement. Thanks, rkmlai (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I undeleted it and the talk page, because you did expand the article and it shouldn't have been deleted.   jj137  ♠ 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, rkmlai (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC) btw how do you have the ability to post here and on the other editor page simultaniously ? I find it way cool
 * I just reply here and then copy and paste my comments to my own talk page. That way any conversations I have don't get completely separated in two places and become very confusing.   jj137  ♠ 18:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your Adminship rkmlai (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks   jj137  ♠ 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello
In regards to your recent edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:D%26D_Books such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:D%26D_Books&oldid=183195552. I think it is good to leave in the red linked items as they are part of the IRL game, just not written about on wikipedia (yet). My idea would be to revert your edits but since I havent played the game recently, I dont know it they (the red linked articles) actually really exist in real life, or are indeed really important to the game. I think that just because the articles for wikipedia havent been written, that part of reality for those interested shouldnt be erased. Care to discuss ?

Thanks rkmlai (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello! I went ahead and removed them since some of those links were deleted pages. Generally it is not accepted to a large number of red-linked pages, even if the products do exsist in real life (I have many of them) if there is nothing to link too then why link to it?  Also there is the general clean-up point of view.  I work on a lot of these aricles, so if they do get created I can add the link back right away.  Thanks for taking the time to stop by and let me know. Web Warlock (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "if there is nothing to link too then why link to it?" so I think I am of an "inclusionist" point of view and think (as stated above) that just because wikipedia dosnt have an article written yet, that the item in question does exist in real life and there for shouldnt be "deleted" from an encyclopedic article template. I further think that a general cleanup can, and really should, include red links to encompase the IRL reality. However I am not at all attached to you changing your position or reverting the edits you have made. I did feel that to remain silent when I had an opinion would be in error on my part. Thank you for rapidly responding, listening / reading.


 * BTW what is your views on "Wikipedians against notability" ? Would you be willing to explain ? I think I think similarly (to the headline at least) but I am not sure.


 * Thanks rkmlai (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see my self as an inclusionist as well, but not a universal inclusionist; that is not everything needs to be here, but generally more than most. I am also in favor of notability, but there is a lot of grey area and I am certainly not one to delete aricles because of lack of notability.  I am an academic by training and nature, so yeah if I say something I want to be able to back it up. Web Warlock (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What color is rubberwood?
What wood does rubberwood most closely match in color- maple, cherry, mahogany,oak, or other. Please let me know, as I need to match a buffet to a cherry dining room set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.15.15 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the copypaste tag and also added a bit about how Rubberwood is often used by manufactures by adding Wood finishing techniques to mimic many more expensive wood types, like oak, cherrywood, etc. The rubberwood I have recently seen (as in like shopping for a futon frame as of 12/07) was buff (color) like this Buff - #F0DC82 Good luck, rkmlai (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dirigible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiki%27s_Delivery_Service Just deleted some misinformation introduced in recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiki%27s_Delivery_Service&diff=prev&oldid=186402818 the LTA aircraft involved in the accident was most assuredly NOT the Hindenburg. Cactus Wren (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you rkmlai (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dirigible
You're most welcome. I think there's a widespread tendency to conflate any airship not obviously balloon-shaped with the Hindenburg. Cactus Wren (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was wanting to correct the article when I read it but didnt have the space in my day nor the words right then to fix it. rkmlai (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, How do you feel about adding the bit about the USS Los Angeles USS_Los_Angeles_%28ZR-3%29 in that it did tail up end and drift ? Adding it may discourage new Hindenberg stuff being added. rkmlai (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric medicine, my article
Thanks for having a look at my article on prehistoric medicine and suggesting those pages for further info, I hope you don't mind but I've added them as references for the page along with some accompanying text which I have jsut finished researching. I'm glad you think it's an interesting article and look forward to seeing how you can improve it in the future! =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tilden as Amusement Park
By almost any definition of 'amusement park' I've ever heard, Tilden does not qualify. It is an outdoor nature park that happens to have one traditional amusement park ride - a merry go round - in it. That hardly qualifies it as an amusement park. If someone said to you 'hey, lets go to this amusement park I know of' and you said 'great idea, I love amusement parks more than anything else in the world' and you ended up at Tilden, you would be sorely disappointed.--Fizbin (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a science museum to have fun in, a train to be ridden, a lake to swim in, a nature center to see.a merry go round to go around in. It fits my idea of a "amusement area in the BAy Area" though I hear what you are saying that it is not Marine World AfricaUSA or Great America. rkmlai (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Care to further discuss ? rkmlai (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above, calling it an amusement park is exceedingly deceptive advertising. Great America and the Santa Cruz Boardwalk are amusement parks - Tilden is not. By your definition 90% of the parks in the Bay Area are amusement parks. --Fizbin (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont believe that 90% of the parks in the Bay Area all include amusement park rides, museums, nature centers. Which parts of the Bay Area do you reside in or abouts ? They sound like fun areas. rkmlai (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Grew up next to and played/hiked/rode often in Tilden. Never once considered it an amusement park. Those, back in the day, were Playland at the Beach and the Santa Cruz Boardwalk.--Fizbin (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I grew up in Berkeley. Went swimming in Lake Anza, then took my kids to the Redwood Valley Railway and Tilden Park Merry-Go-Round, then later took my girlfriend's dog on walks around Lake Anza. These were the less expensive, local, environmental, amusement parks of my time. I still think Tilden should be listed as an place of "amusement" and "park" rkmlai (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Filmography
Talk:Michael Gambon shouldn't the list be ordered from earliest to latest, like the theatre section is? The article needs to be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.113.153 (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. rkmlai (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berkeley%2C_California&curid=283480&diff=190066689&oldid=190066119 yes indeed there is an element named Berkelium

Peace,

rkmlai (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for pointing out my error. Appears I spelled it wrong and didn't try other spellings or go at it from different angles. I already apologized to Cholga. Leobold1 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh...and Hello back to you. :D Leobold1 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I have signed up for Admin Coaching, and would like to know if you specifically would volunteer to coach me to become a great administrator some day. I have you on my watch list since the Jonah House incident and have watched your progress with great interest. You seem like a good mentor for me.

Thank you for your consideration,

rkmlai (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin coaching
Sure, I'd like to. If it sounds good I'll reply back with specifics.  jj137  ♠ 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to William_P._Quigley copywrite violation
Thank you for you interest in Bill Quigley however the bulk of what you included in the text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_P._Quigley&diff=186990745&oldid=186990263, except for the bit about his family life (thank you :] ) seems to be from here: http://law.loyno.edu/~quigley/

Now in that I understand wikipedia cannot have copywrited materials copied into the wikipedia, I am removing your text with the hope of rewriting it in non-copywritten words.

Thanks,

rkmlai (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

'Hi' from me too
Yeah I'm currently working on Prehistoric medicine, I hate to see it as a stub.. Good luck with your article on Plowshares Movement, I've just read it and it looks interesting, something I never even knew happened! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the help with Prehistoric Medicine so far! I wasn't sure even how to start categorizing the article.. Glad you were there to help out =] MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonah House
I have nominated Jonah House, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Jonah House. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jmlk 1  7  09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tilden as Amusement Park
By almost any definition of 'amusement park' I've ever heard, Tilden does not qualify. It is an outdoor nature park that happens to have one traditional amusement park ride - a merry go round - in it. That hardly qualifies it as an amusement park. If someone said to you 'hey, lets go to this amusement park I know of' and you said 'great idea, I love amusement parks more than anything else in the world' and you ended up at Tilden, you would be sorely disappointed.--Fizbin (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a science museum to have fun in, a train to be ridden, a lake to swim in, a nature center to see.a merry go round to go around in. It fits my idea of a "amusement area in the BAy Area" though I hear what you are saying that it is not Marine World AfricaUSA or Great America. rkmlai (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said in my note on the Tilden page, calling it an amusement park is exceedingly deceptive advertising. Great America and the Santa Cruz Boardwalk are amusement parks - Tilden is not. By your definition 90% of the parks in the Bay Area are amusement parks. --Fizbin (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, calling it an amusement park is exceedingly deceptive advertising. Great America and the Santa Cruz Boardwalk are amusement parks - Tilden is not. By your definition 90% of the parks in the Bay Area are amusement parks. --Fizbin (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont believe that 90% of the parks in the Bay Area all include amusement park rides, museums, nature centers. Which parts of the Bay Area do you reside in or abouts ? They sound like fun areas. rkmlai (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Grew up next to and played/hiked/rode often in Tilden. Never once considered it an amusement park. Those, back in the day, were Playland at the Beach and the Santa Cruz Boardwalk.--Fizbin (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I grew up in Berkeley. Went swimming in Lake Anza, then took my kids to the Redwood Valley Railway and Tilden Park Merry-Go-Round, then later took my girlfriend's dog on walks around Lake Anza. These were the less expensive, local, environmental, amusement parks of my time. I still think Tilden should be listed as an place of "amusement" and "park" rkmlai (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request
You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at the Coachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ==Thanks==

Thank you for your message to me. I am interested in being an Admin, have contacted an Admin for possible coaching, but am on a mountaintop right now at a retreat center, without space to immediatly address my desire to be an admin. Thank you rkmlai (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Buffyversenav should be inclusive because,
...unless you know where to look, or see the character in the template, you will not know that a wikipedia article exists about the character. Say I am new to the series, go onto Wikipedia, find Spike, like reading about Spike, want to know more about others around Spike, where do I look ? Just use the faulty wikipedia search engine ? Oh, wait, there is a Template:Buffyversenav template with more names and information linking directly to the articles I am looking for. Yippie. Thank you for reading and considering rkmlai (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you make it to the template at the bottom of the page, then you'll make it to the categories at the bottom of the page that have the same (more comprehensive) list of characters. First, the main reason this template is too large is because it includes two television shows. There are many things in Angel that have nothing to do with Buffy, and vice versa. There should be two templates, one for Angel and one for Buffy. This was discussed before, and someone was supposed to be creating a new template for Angel.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Help
If you have the time and the mood, I have seen that the Lost Valley Educational Center article has been rewritten in a style that seems to me to be self promoting. I would not like to see the article butchered or placed up for deletion as selfpromoting, yet feel that I may be too close (having lived there) to revert or edit the article within a neutral point of view from myself. And I cannot find the template tag that says "wikipedia is not an ad". Thanks rkmlai (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am a worker at Lost Valley Educational Center, and I was attempting some outreach on WP on behalf of the facility. About 1 1/2 hours later my work was rolled back. I was able to provide much more information than was previously posted, so I was dissapointed to see you updating it with less. I'm aware of WP's proclaimed standards, and I was mostly following them. If you have a vested interest in keeping the page neutral, PLEASE USE the information I spent my time gathering and editing, instead of deleting it because it doesn't fit in with your standards. Because I am working for Lost Valley, they are ok with potentially copyrighted material, such as harmless pictures of the facility, ect.
 * Because of this encounter, I will write more neutrally, and pay closer attention to the roolz, BUT I will also be much less willing to post information to begin with, if its going to be destroyed so instantly.
 * On another note, I appreciate and share your love and interest in Oregon, both currently and historically. I love checking out old buildings, such as the McMurphy house in Eugene. In the future, when I have more access to the net I may browse your contributions. Signed Mocosomocoso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocosomocoso (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll reply on your talk page, thanks. Katr67 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mocosomocoso

Lost Valley Educational Center
Hi, first you might want to take a look at some of the pages in the welcome template above. And you can sign your posts by putting four tildes ~ at the end of your message, this will automatically append your username and a date stamp. More soon, I'm busy right this second. Katr67 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. First of all, thanks for acknowledging your conflict of interest. If you read the COI guidelines, you will see that you have to be very careful about editing articles on subjects in which you have a vested interest. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not here to provide a platform for outreach on behalf of LV. If you check the page history and edit summaries, you will see that I didn't rollback all of the material you added, but that I did remove the copied and pasted info about the workshop. Even if you have permission to use LV material (you can read more about permissions here). It is preferable that the material be rewritten in your own words and that it remain neutral in tone, as you have already noted. Also note that your work is not "destroyed". Only rarely is material on Wikipedia irretrievable, as you can see by checking the page history. Though I do my best to work with and rewrite material that isn't quite up to our standards, in the case of what appears to be an outright copy and paste, I think the burden of rewriting the material should be on the original contributor.


 * I'm sorry if you feel bitten. If you are concerned about your material being removed again, it's always a good idea to post it on the article's talk page where it can be discussed first. I do acknowledge a strong bias edits that use Wikipedia for promotion of anything, even something I otherwise support in "real life" such as LV, and that I pretty much always revert copied and pasted material. Both those biases are widely held beliefs on Wikipedia. It's also my personal belief that articles on "fringe" (if you will) topics need to be held to an even higher standard as they have the potential to be dismissed as non-notable by the Wikipedia community. FWIW, I know several people who have had some connection with the place over the years and would love to come check it out sometime. Let's keep any specific discussion about the article itself on the article's talk page. We do have a lot of rules here, but living in community, I'm sure you know all about the potential tediousness of consensus decision making! I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any more questions. Katr67 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I used to live at LVEC, and am still connected to the place. Who are you ? Would you be interested in collaborating on the LVEC article ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Diane Wilson
Hello

Could you explain your deletion of Diane Wilson. I did not see the article as published, despite it being on my redlinked watchlist. What did the article say ? I feel she is a notable person in the world. Peace,

rkmlai (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Diane Wilson
The article was 11 words long, said 'she's an environmentalist and author' and that was about it. Not even able to convert into a legit stub. SkierRMH ( talk ) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

D&D 4.0
Please consider restoring the release of D&D 4.0 to the News items of 6/6/08 as it is news to some. Thanks rkmlai (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

d&d
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlippman&action=edit&section=14 i considered putting d&d back in, rkmlai; but you could fill many books with all the news of every day. d&d doesn't make the cut, in my book.

Thanks for your consideration. It was news to me, but I see the opinion that "release dates of products" might not be "news". rkmlai (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you find printed or computer resources ?
for the Lusikka-haarukka to improve the article in as far as external resources. I looked up (and then created) a stub for Hackman as they are apparently the source for the Lusikka-haarukka. After obtaining some external printed references, then I think some OR might be able to be added in but there should be external references first. rkmlai (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article definitely needs some sources, but i didn't find anything from internet, except some netstores with only information being the price. Quick search from my bookshelves didn't help at all, even finnish army manual for conscripts doesn't mention luha at all. At least my version of it. It seems, that luha deserves its other nickname, "mystery". Woden (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)